|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet. Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar. Quiet doesn't have to mean empty. Ah. So you freely admit that you will cycle across a pedestrian crossing - and you've previously used the figure of 20mph - even if it's in use by pedestrians at the time, as long as you deem it to be "quiet". Does "quiet" mean that there's just about space to get through between pedestrians? Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers. I won't. Anybody who, whilst in charge of ANY vehicle, goes through a red light is - at best - not ****ing looking. If they do so _deliberately_, in the full knowledge that it's red and that there's pedestrians on the crossing, then they should be charged with dangerous driving. Not careless driving. If they then boast about and try to justify it, then they're a prize **** of the highest order. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: So should other road users (eg motorists) be allowed to do the same - to drive across a zebra crossing or through a red light - simply because the user who has right of way has not yet reached a point where the vehicle will hit them? Or are you suggesting that motor vehicles should be subject to one set of rules and cyclists to a more lenient set? No and no. Rules of the road should be rules of the road regardless of vehicle. But you've repeatedly said that you do it, and attempted to justify it. The only way your answers can be viewed as even slightly consistent is if you also regard yourself as an arrogant **** who is a danger to others. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Absolutely, I freely admit to taking full advantage of the fact that as a cyclist I am virtually anonymous out on the street and why I may attempt things on the bike that I would never do in my car. Yes, I do want my cake and eat it. The day they shove a GPS enabled RFID up my arse and scanners at every junction is the day I'll stop jumping lights. frames post |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Well I can't speak for other drivers but personally I don't want bicycles to get off the road (unless there is a good alternative such as a totally segregated cycle track that avoids conflict with both motor vehicles and pedestrians). All I want is them to behave like human-powered motor vehicles in that they obey all the rules of the road such as stopping at all lights and zebra crossings, not overtaking on the left and not being given any preferential treatment such as their own lane or advance stop lines. Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely. In other words, I'd like them to behave as thoughtfully and courteously to motor vehicles as I do when I'm cycling. Aye 'n' there's the rub. Use the road, follow the rules, but stay out of my way. Which - specific - bit of that do you have a problem with? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Conor" wrote in message ... In article d0b9dc37-37a6-441e-8bf7- , MIG says... Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe bet that they would be paying attention. Is that why the other day, a cyclist yet again decided to cycle up the inside of an artic turning left at a roundabout with railings, even though the lorry had been in front of her, resulting in her being crushed? It's just part of a natural selection process to weed out those lacking in intelligence. I only feel sorry for the lorry driver. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On 15 Apr 2009 16:15:06 GMT, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Well I can't speak for other drivers but personally I don't want bicycles to get off the road (unless there is a good alternative such as a totally segregated cycle track that avoids conflict with both motor vehicles and pedestrians). All I want is them to behave like human-powered motor vehicles in that they obey all the rules of the road such as stopping at all lights and zebra crossings, not overtaking on the left and not being given any preferential treatment such as their own lane or advance stop lines. Considerate cycling would be a bonus - accepting that because they are slower than motor vehicles they should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster vehicles to overtake them safely. In other words, I'd like them to behave as thoughtfully and courteously to motor vehicles as I do when I'm cycling. Aye 'n' there's the rub. Use the road, follow the rules, but stay out of my way. Which - specific - bit of that do you have a problem with? Whilst I am in no way supporting Marz - I think he is a menace and danger and will make things worse for all cyclists and deserves to be caught and dissuaded from continuing in his blow through crossings at 20+ mph - I have a problem with the "should keep over to the left to make it as easy as possible for faster to overtake them safely". Very often what is safest for the cyclist is not to be as far over to the left as Mortimer wants, in fact the safest position is often the primary position. Of course a cyclist should be considerate and not unduly hold up a stream of traffic but it should be up to the cyclist to decide when it is safe and appropriate to move to secondary position. -- Andy Leighton = "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 11:12*am, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: So should other road users (eg motorists) be allowed to do the same - to drive across a zebra crossing or through a red light - simply because the user who has right of way has not yet reached a point where the vehicle will hit them? Or are you suggesting that motor vehicles should be subject to one set of rules and cyclists to a more lenient set? No and no. Rules of the road should be rules of the road regardless of vehicle. But you've repeatedly said that you do it, and attempted to justify it. The only way your answers can be viewed as even slightly consistent is if you also regard yourself as an arrogant **** who is a danger to others. I do not attempt to justify any of my actions. I may describe what I do and explain why, but not as some vague attempt to justify it. Yours and probably most folk's perception that I'm a danger to others is not a view I share. Hyperthetically, you've just stepped off the road onto the pavement at a crossing that's still red. I'm waiting at the light (I do that sometimes) and as you step off the road, before the lights goes green I'm off. Why do you care? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:43:15 +0100
"0.0" wrote: "Conor" wrote in message ... In article d0b9dc37-37a6-441e-8bf7- , MIG says... Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe bet that they would be paying attention. Is that why the other day, a cyclist yet again decided to cycle up the inside of an artic turning left at a roundabout with railings, even though the lorry had been in front of her, resulting in her being crushed? It's just part of a natural selection process to weed out those lacking in intelligence. I only feel sorry for the lorry driver. While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers arn't immune from forgetting to indicate. B2003 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you to do exactly that. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too. And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
Aspersions were cast across cyclists in general and I retaliated that drivers shouldn't be the ones to cast the first stone. The discussion was about cyslists refusing to give way to pedestrians. i.e. behaving in exactly the way you say you behave. Of course my assumption that the post was from a driver could be wrong. All of your assumptions have been wrong to date. Why would you change the habits of a lifetime? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe wrote:
I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Colin Reed wrote:
The recent posts from "Marz", who to me at least is a new one, have suggested that he would do more damage to a ped who deliberately shoulder charged him than he would suffer himself. Is this what you refer to as "terrorising pedestrians"? No, I refer to his admission that he barrels through pedestrians on crossings, even ignoring red lights to do so. And that he thinks it quite appropriate to force his way between the pedestrians who have a right to use the crossing when he does not. But it's nice to see the cyclists either (a) closing ranks or (b) refusing to see things from the point of the view of the vulnerable road user. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Andy Leighton gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: Of course a cyclist should be considerate and not unduly hold up a stream of traffic but it should be up to the cyclist to decide when it is safe and appropriate to move to secondary position. ....by moving towards the left to make it easy for the other traffic to pass? I'm not reading "should keep over to the left" as advocating cycling in the gutter, merely being considerate and not holding up other traffic. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
Does "quiet" mean that there's just about space to get through between pedestrians? He's already indicated that is the case: "But a cyclist jumping a red light is not aiming for you, but the gap between and the next person." Message-ID: |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In article , says...
While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers arn't immune from forgetting to indicate. It was already completely over the white give way line turning into the first exit. AND If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate, would have been in the same lane and the trailer would have followed the same path. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote: I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts. But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it. Roger Thorpe |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 11:10*am, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: You claimed that you would only jump a red light if it was "quiet". If there are pedestrians on the crossing then by definition it's not quiet. Either way your mutually contradictory statements make you a liar. Quiet doesn't have to mean empty. Ah. So you freely admit that you will cycle across a pedestrian crossing - and you've previously used the figure of 20mph - even if it's in use by pedestrians at the time, as long as you deem it to be "quiet". Does "quiet" mean that there's just about space to get through between pedestrians? Fine, I'll avoid comparisons to drivers. I won't. Anybody who, whilst in charge of ANY vehicle, goes through a red light is - at best - not ****ing looking. If they do so _deliberately_, in the full knowledge that it's red and that there's pedestrians on the crossing, then they should be charged with dangerous driving. Not careless driving. If they then boast about and try to justify it, then they're a prize **** of the highest order. Quiet, if I was on the far side I'd take the gap behind the ped, but slow to make sure she was way over the centre line before going through... http://www.edu.dudley.gov.uk/roadsaf.../pelican_1.JPG Way too busy (I know, wrong sort of crossing)... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ng_2004-01.jpg In fact you could just add one person to the first picture, crossing the other way and my clear gap is gone. Again not trying to justify this to anyone else 'cept myself. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Quiet, if I was on the far side I'd take the gap behind the ped, but slow to make sure she was way over the centre line before going through... But - even though you don't want different rules of the road for cyclists to everybody else - you'd have a problem if somebody in a car or on a motorbike did exactly that. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
On Apr 14, 5:21 pm, thaksin wrote: Marz wrote: On Apr 14, 4:13 pm, Adrian wrote: Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I'm a cyclist, but am more than willing to shoulder charge any cyclist who cycles across a crossing while I have the green man. Risky, I'm 16 stone and I average 20-21mph on the road. You don't want to shoulder charge me mate! And you'd cycle through a red light and across a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians without even slowing? No, prat. sigh A sig separator should be dash dash space, not a comma. You really are a completely and utterly antisocial ****, aren't you? Actually yes Thought so. but that has nothing to do with how I ride my bike, ****! Once again, that's dash dash space. Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately - because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed. See answer to your first stupid question, arsehole! See? You've really not got the hang of this sig sep lark, have you? Would that be the answer where you either showed your previous comment to be a complete non-sequitur or tried desperately to back-track when you realised what a tit you'd made yourself look? No back-tracking here. pk suggested attacking a cyclist breaking the law, I pointed out that if he tried that with me it's not going to good for him. You jumped to the conclusion that I do jump lights at busy crossings and I'm pointing out you're wrong. Why is it ok to attack someone breaking a law that doesn't involve your own person? Well I dont want to put words in pk's mouth and I'm sure he's perfectly capable of answering for himself, but I think his comment about 'attacking' cyclists who break the law is a response to the widely-held and oft-spoken view in URC that cyclists should be permitted to vandalise cars the drivers of which have allegedly put them at risk. So: cyclist feels at risk from car = justified in attacking car (apparently). ped feels at risk from cyclist = justified in attacking cyclist. See? All makes sense now :) Sort of makes sense. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But there's a double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in seconds. Ummmm, ********. Sorry, but it is. The _car_ performing this illegal man-nooo-ver is suitably equipped with a method of tracing and penalising the responsible person. Any person can, and many in URC allegedly _do_, report said vehicle with the precision necessary to identify later. Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember even _hearing of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant cyclist, AND lets remember that said cyclist has no identifying mark so that any random member of the public can report him (or plod, for that matter). "Umm, he had a red jersey on a mountain bike" isn't exactly going to find him later, is it? Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore able to empathise with one road user than the other? Its not possible to come up with a reason for it, since we've just shown that it doesn't exist. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
thaksin gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember even _hearing of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant cyclist waves I have. Kinda. Baker St, London - some arrogant ****bubble tried to go tonking at undiminished speed through red lights and across a pedestrian crossing. Except it was a bit full of pedestrians. One of whom, a largish chap - straight-armed the ****wit. Once Marz untangled himself from his bicycle and got up, he came charging into the crowd swinging at anybody and everybody whilst hurling abuse. As the plastic plods came running, I had the great and personal pleasure of telling one of them exactly what had precipitated the incident. He was last seen on the pavement being sat on by one of them whilst the other handcuffed him. Much chuckling was heard. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 12:26*pm, Adrian wrote:
Marz gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Quiet, if I was on the far side I'd take the gap behind the ped, but slow to make sure she was way over the centre line before going through... But - even though you don't want different rules of the road for cyclists to everybody else - you'd have a problem if somebody in a car or on a motorbike did exactly that. Yes. If I approached the crossing in my car I would wait for the green light and would expect other drivers to do the same. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 11:58*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Marz wrote: For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you to do exactly that. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too. And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are. What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is immaterial. Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:08:40 +0100
Conor wrote: While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers arn't immune from forgetting to indicate. It was already completely over the white give way line turning into the first exit. when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't forget to indicate. AND If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate, You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew. B2003 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:08:40 +0100 Conor wrote: While riding up the inside of a truck is a prety dumb thing to do truckers arn't immune from forgetting to indicate. It was already completely over the white give way line turning into the first exit. when.... what? The cyclist tried to ride past it? Doesn't mean he didn't forget to indicate. AND If it was going straight on, it would not be required to indicate, You don't have to indicate if going straight ahead?! Wow, who knew. I don't think you *have* to indicate if you are turning. It's a courtesy and an *indication* of intent |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. Filthy is full of hot air and BS. Don't take him too seriously. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote: Roger Thorpe wrote: I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts. But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it. The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others does not make him "open and honest". Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest". Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word that Robertson says. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
mileburner wrote:
Marz wrote: Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. Filthy is full of hot air and BS. Don't take him too seriously. Heavens above, another two-wheeled loser. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not making new rules, What your walnut sized brain seems to fail to comprehend is that you are making your own rules. I'm all for anarchy, which is what you seem to want. What you fail to realise is that in an anarchy *everyone* is a policeman and those who try to unilaterally impose their rules on society will be resisted by a significant number. I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is immaterial. It's not "think" sonny. Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. I said nothing about attacking anyone, strike up another failure for that walnut-sized cat brain you have. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Apr 15, 6:56*pm, Marz wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:58*am, (Steve Firth) wrote: Marz wrote: For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you to do exactly that. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too.. And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are. What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is immaterial. Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. Ah, another ****wit cyclist who thinks he is above the law. Is he typical or is he the type that give others a bad name? Francis |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Adrian" wrote in message
... Andy Leighton gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Of course a cyclist should be considerate and not unduly hold up a stream of traffic but it should be up to the cyclist to decide when it is safe and appropriate to move to secondary position. ...by moving towards the left to make it easy for the other traffic to pass? I'm not reading "should keep over to the left" as advocating cycling in the gutter, merely being considerate and not holding up other traffic. The problem is the small minority of cyclists who *don't* move over even when it is safe to do so. They seem to want drivers to give them even more clearance than a car would give the offside of another car that they were overtaking - in other words for a car to cross completely onto the opposite side of the road. I realise that cyclists need a bit more room than you'd give a car because of the problem of being sucked into the slipstream - especially when it is an HGV or bus that is overtaking, but that does not excuse riding two abreast when there are cars queuing behind. I got stuck behind two cyclists who were on a road which is wide enough for two cars to pass with one car (in one direction *or* the other) to overtake. They thought it was clever to ride with one in the gutter and the other right next to the centre line, with almost a car-width of space between them. Very selfish, when if they had ridden in signle file, even in the centre of the lane, there would have been plenty of space for a car to have overtaken while still allowing room for an oncoming car. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
thaksin gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Conversely, I've _never_ seen, and dont ever remember even _hearing of_, a "lynch mob" exacting retribution from an errant cyclist waves I have. Kinda. Baker St, London - some arrogant ****bubble tried to go tonking at undiminished speed through red lights and across a pedestrian crossing. Except it was a bit full of pedestrians. One of whom, a largish chap - straight-armed the ****wit. Once Marz untangled himself from his bicycle and got up, he came charging into the crowd swinging at anybody and everybody whilst hurling abuse. As the plastic plods came running, I had the great and personal pleasure of telling one of them exactly what had precipitated the incident. He was last seen on the pavement being sat on by one of them whilst the other handcuffed him. Much chuckling was heard. Well, okay, there's an exception to every rule. But I still think there's a hell of a lot more 'report of RLJing car reg no. ABC123' over 'knobhead on bike beaten by passers-by'. On the other hand, I appear to have got away with having a complete mindfreeze and not remembering how to spell a word in my original post, simply by deliberately mangling it, so things can't be all bad :) |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Marz wrote:
On Apr 15, 11:58 am, (Steve Firth) wrote: Marz wrote: For the avoidance of doubt, that's you that is. No that's not me. I've never demanded anyone get out of my ****ing way. I actually believe peds have the right of way over cyclists at all times. There you go again, because you've already stated that you refuse to cede right of way to pedestrians, even when the red light is telling you to do exactly that. I just don't give a crap if the light is red and that a ped's right of way is defined by the fact my actions will not impede their progress. I see, you feel that you should be the only person to make all the rules. Try it with me and you'll find out that I can make the rules too. And I'm a much nastier ****er than you seem to think you are. What your simple wee mind seems to fail to grasp is that I'm not making new rules, I'm not saying this is how things are supposed to be or even justifying it as ok. It's just what I do and whether you think you can take me or not is immaterial. Whereas you seem to think it is ok and justified to violently attack someone who infringes a traffic law. Funny, I didn't read that into it. What I _did_ read it as was "if you endanger ME while infringing said traffic law, don't be surprised if some violence befalls you". See the subtle difference there? Not 'random rule-breaker', but 'person putting me at risk'. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote: Steve Firth wrote: Roger Thorpe wrote: I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts. But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it. The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others does not make him "open and honest". Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest". Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word that Robertson says. Neither does he, when he sobers up. (Rare as that might be) |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In article ,
(Adrian) wrote: gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Lorries that have warning signs against cycles passing them on the inside are admitting that they are not safe to be allowed on the roads. Does this apply to all warning signs, or just to those possessed by people who you don't like? No, just the ones that admit that the vehicles they are attached to are too dangerous to mix with vulnerable road users. There's nothing inherently "dangerous" about HGVs. They don't hide behind traffic lights before jumping out to savage innocent cyclists. They only pose a danger to those who don't think whilst around them. Sorry, they are dangerous because they either don't have under-run protection like other vehicles or it provides inadequate protection. I've seen too many entirely innocent cyclists and pedestrians killed by them, like one tourist pedestrian on the pavement on a gently curved junction (so no excuse for mounting the kerb) in central Cambridge a year or two back. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
"Mortimer" writes: It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber because this is not actually an offence. The whole point of having an TSRGD 2002 para 36 (a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line; [...] (e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it; Seems pretty clear cut to me. Unless the vehicle is too close to be stopped safely, it's the same offence as going through on red. No, it conveys the same prohibition, but it is not the same offence. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Mortimer wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... By the way, what's the situation with lights which are only for a pedestrian crossing (ie not for a road junction)? I thought that these always had a flashing amber phase between red and green, during which it was legal for cars to set off or drive across providing the crossing was clear of pedestrians. I was surprised the other day to find a pedestrian-only crossing where the lights went to solid amber instead of flashing amber. There are lots like that in Liverpool - all the way along the A59 (Scotland Road and extensions) for example. Ah. OK. How do the installers decide which type of pedestrian lights to install and how do road users know which type are being used - apart Puffins should not have flashing amber, because of the way they are supposed to work. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
Roger Thorpe wrote: Steve Firth wrote: Roger Thorpe wrote: I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts. But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it. The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others does not make him "open and honest". I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer might be. Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest". No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he regrets that action, but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him. Once more I am astonished that *any* behaviour seems to be acceptable to the cycling community as long as someone wedges a saddle up their bum crack, or claims that they do. Because I don't believe a single word that Robertson says. If you had been reading this group (URC)for a while you would have read responses that condemned red light jumping, riding on the pavement, riding while intoxicated, riding without lights etc etc etc. At the moment the group is in a dysfunctional state after the concerted attempts by a couple of trolls to destroy it, Doug's attempts to stir up controversy and a boneheaded series of arguments about helmets where neither side will let go. What we've got now is overreaction, overstatement and wilful misunderstanding and an absence of people who want to discuss the joys of self propelled travel. I hope that it will calm down soon. Roger Thorpe |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote: Roger Thorpe wrote: Steve Firth wrote: Roger Thorpe wrote: I'd like to read those posts. I think that Brian would probably admit to having views that diverge from those of the rest of the URC regulars, but he is remarkably open and honest. He's anything but open and honest. He's a lying ****weasel who considers that it's reasonable to get ****-face drunk then to take charge of a vehicle carrying passengers, none of whom even have seat belts. But you only know this *because* he is open and honest about it. The fact that he boasts about recklessly endangering the lives of others does not make him "open and honest". I've not read him "boast" about it, you'll have to ask him if he thinks that it was a wise thing to do. I think that I know what his answer might be. I'm not so sure that you do. He has certainly revelled in the controversy on more than one newsgroup, sometimes 'gleefully'. Reggie and Ronnie Kray liked everyone to know who they had had killed and injured. By your argument above that makes them "open and honest". No it doesn't, because my argument is based on the premise that he regrets that action, but was prepared to confess it. Sadly a couple of trolls here will continue to use it as a stick to beat him. The reason he gets 'beaten with a stick' could be related to his very open hatred (no, thats not an exaggeration) of private cars and/or their drivers. Since he insists on being so deliberately confrontational, I think its churlish to call those who respond in similarly 'robust' fashion trolls. Perhaps you should read more of Googles comprehensive posting history on him and then re-evaluate your viewpoint? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk